Poker is Good for You

[Gullanian]

I'm sure I'm just re-iterating what has been said by others, but in my opinion poker isn't good for me, it nearly destroyed me.

You can argue skills gained through poker can be extrapolated to improve your life, but the step from that and arguing 'its good for you' is a big one to make. Sure it taught me a lot about EV and how to apply some mathematical principles usefully in my life which have no doubt improved it in some ways, but the overall cost was far too dear.

For every successful poker player there are people beneath them somewhere in the pyramid who are suffering to a degree hopefully many of you will never need to experience. It's a sobering thought that obviously people with invested interests in the game often turn a blind eye to.

And it's not just the ones with extreme problems who are suffering, it's a huge number of people, some of them my friends who just don't understand it's not going to go anywhere for them and after many years they are still wasting their time on it (if they enjoy it fair enough, but I don't actually think they do in a lot of cases). It's cost them in ways that are unmeasurable, such as lack of focus in more hopeful areas in their life which they abandon for the game with unrealistic expectations.

You can also extrapolate from the game of poker is that it teaches people to be individualistic and amoral. The constant ethic that runs rampant in this forum is that you better rape the fish for all he has or someone else will get it. Any money on the table is fair game. Take every edge possible. These don't really help you out in day to day life, nor where they mentioned in the article, and encourage a more selfish and less empathetic society.

I'm not anti poker at all, but it saddens me to read the forums a lot when real problems are not recognised or given enough weighting. Or plainly misunderstood.

So no, poker isn't good for me, nor is it good for a lot of people.

[Poker Clif]

Originally Posted by Gullanian

I'm sure I'm just re-iterating what has been said by others, but in my opinion poker isn't good for me, it nearly destroyed me.

You can argue skills gained through poker can be extrapolated to improve your life, but the step from that and arguing 'its good for you' is a big one to make. Sure it taught me a lot about EV and how to apply some mathematical principles usefully in my life which have no doubt improved it in some ways, but the overall cost was far too dear.

For every successful poker player there are people beneath them somewhere in the pyramid who are suffering to a degree hopefully many of you will never need to experience. It's a sobering thought that obviously people with invested interests in the game often turn a blind eye to.

And it's not just the ones with extreme problems who are suffering, it's a huge number of people, some of them my friends who just don't understand it's not going to go anywhere for them and after many years they are still wasting their time on it (if they enjoy it fair enough, but I don't actually think they do in a lot of cases). It's cost them in ways that are unmeasurable, such as lack of focus in more hopeful areas in their life which they abandon for the game with unrealistic expectations.

You can also extrapolate from the game of poker is that it teaches people to be individualistic and amoral. The constant ethic that runs rampant in this forum is that you better rape the fish for all he has or someone else will get it. Any money on the table is fair game. Take every edge possible. These don't really help you out in day to day life, nor where they mentioned in the article, and encourage a more selfish and less empathetic society.

I'm not anti poker at all, but it saddens me to read the forums a lot when real problems are not recognised or given enough weighting. Or plainly misunderstood.

So no, poker isn't good for me, nor is it good for a lot of people.

This is something that I've given some thought to. If fact, I made a personal decision to play only tournaments. This is partly that it fits the way I think a lot better than cash strategy, and also because I don't want to deal with the issue of someone shoving his rent money at me in the heat of the moment.

When I tell people that I play poker (which is usually when people ask me what I do for a living) I don't recommend it to someone else unless they ask me, and unless I think they have what it takes to be good. My son asked about it, and I'm going to E-mail him something I wrote about how careful I was. (Before I played for real money I read poker books, did play money on two different sites, and kept records just like I would for real money, as a trial to make sure I had everything in place.)

I think that to have a shot at being good at poker, there are several things that need to be in place.

1. You have to have the intellect to juggle several variables in your head. I'm not talking just about math. I'm talking about how the next player to act might respond to your bet, how many players are left to act, what you know about villian's play, what he knows about your play, stack sizes, blind structure, how close you are to the bubble (or the final table, or a money jump), etc. etc.

2. You can not have an addictive personality, drinking or drug problem, mental health issues that are not diagnosed or controlled, or anything else that will affect your play.

3. You must be patient, and disciplined in general. If you're playing a $1 SNG, sometimes the best play is to fold everything except QQ+, let the maniacs playing A3o or K9s knock each other out, then start playing when you're down to 5 players after 10-15 minutes. If someone can't be that patient, tell the person who asks you about it that it's probably not for him.

4. Bankroll management, bankroll management, and bankroll management. It doesn't matter how good you are if you can't manage your money. If you're not good with money in other areas, I would recommend playing poker.

5. You can not be afraid of math. I don't want to get into the "feel player" vs. "math player" argument here, but if you can't memorize your odds and outs, and be able to understand a few basic math concepts such as betting with a weak hand when you're getting huge pot odds, you're bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Of course none of the above applies if you're a recreational player who can afford to bring $40 to a cash game or a $40 local tournament, or put $25 on a poker site and play the micros, and that's your entertainment for the weekend.

[Katipo]

Poker doesn't have feelings or intentions and as such, it cannot be good or bad any more than a chair can. Such attributes are merely our naive projections. The environment shapes us in unpredictable ways based on our dispositions and attitudes. Poker is no different. It can be both a phenomenal tool and a curse but these characterizations depend entirely on how it interacts with an individual's makeup.

With a healthy attitude free of ego, poker is a valuable tool. This is why some schools are making it part of their curriculum. Besides solid fundamentals and basic math, successful high-level play requires a good understanding of psychology, excellent observational skills, enormous flexibility with sparks of creativity, brutal self-honesty and of course, endless discipline coupled with a laser focus. In many ways, poker is a microcosm of the game of life as success depends on the same qualities.

At low stakes, simply being disciplined and applying the fundamentals is sufficient to be a marginal winner but as the stakes increase, so do the demands. Like a good teacher, poker grabs your hand and takes you gently through the journey of self-improvement, provided you're willing to pay attention, work hard and stay on track. It's unfortunate that most people approach it with oversized egos and dreams of grandeur while simultaneously ignoring the lessons the game offers as well as the skills it trains.

Although, I haven't always had the right approach to the game, experience eventually brought wisdom and change. I've since greatly benefited from poker and not just in a financial sense. It helped me see myself more clearly than any self-help book and removed the seemingly unending layers of BS that I used to protect my precious ego or sense of identity.

Poker shines on every aspect of your psyche and leaves no weakness unturned. It can reveal defects you never knew existed and make you a much more resilient person. What do you do when facing a large downswing? Do you rashly tilt away even more money at higher stakes in a desperate attempt to recoup losses? Do you grind insane volume while playing mediocre poker? Do you get so discouraged that you quit for several weeks? Or, do you redouble your efforts to improve while taking negative variance with a proud and detached grin because you know that most players would be thrown off their game in a similar situation? Likewise, if you're walking on water, do you become overconfident and decide to take shots at higher stakes against players you considered much better just a week ago or do you patiently wait to see what part is you and what part is luck? Our reactions to the highs and lows poker throws at us reflects our responses in many other situations and it's essential to turn inappropriate behaviors into useful ones that encourage growth.

Variance doesn't exist just in poker; life is variance on a cosmic scale. If you've done your best to get a good grade on a test and didn't meet your goals, that too may be variance and our response to it dictates our long-term success. Some may look at their grade in disgust and slack-off but the few who find success will strive to improve what they can control without worrying about the rest. We'll all have our obstacles and we need to prepare ourselves. With poker, our personal Mt. Everest will be nothing more than many small hills stacked on each other.

[zackryan28]

I'm gonna try to loosely respond to some of the posts I've skimmed on this thread. Here goes:

I can only feel as bad for the people who waste years of time and or/significant sums of money playing poker as I do for anybody else who hasn't found success in life. Your economic situation is all about how you invest your scarce resources, namely time. There are people who spend 4 years in undergraduate school, only to graduate and find out there are no jobs in their field of study, and are lucky to find a job that allows them to pay their student loans. Is this any better than grinding at poker to no avail?

If you play poker for a long enough time, you should be able to objectively evaluate your ability. If you find that you aren't cutting it, you have a few options. You can try to get better (obviously something everybody should be doing anyways) or you can decide to invest your time in something more fruitful.

I never, ever feel bad about taking money from a bad player (or any player for that matter). If a person has a gambling problem, it is up to them to get help. I mean, for a long time, I was a break even/slightly losing player. However, I took the initiative to get better, and it is something I've invested a tremendous amount of time in. I still don't know if I will ever be a hugely winning player. I'd like to think so--I've always been way ahead of the curve intellectually, and so far it's paid off pretty well in poker. The point is that eventually, I'm going to have to make a choice of whether or not playing poker is what I want to do. Just like people choose to smoke, drink, eat mcdonalds, go skydiving, and so on.

Saying you feel better about playing in MTTs than you do playing sngs or cash games is like saying if you have to kill a stranger, you'd rather do it by remote detonation rather than with a knife (very different, but you get the analogy). It makes no difference, but hey, whatever helps you justify your actions...

Poker doesn't teach you to be individualistic or amoral. The big name poker players are also some of the biggest philanthropists. True, you are at the table to make money off of other people, but it's no different than, say, trying to get a good deal on a car.

[Poker Clif]

Originally Posted by zackryan28

I'm gonna try to loosely respond to some of the posts I've skimmed on this thread. Here goes:

I can only feel as bad for the people who waste years of time and or/significant sums of money playing poker as I do for anybody else who hasn't found success in life. Your economic situation is all about how you invest your scarce resources, namely time. There are people who spend 4 years in undergraduate school, only to graduate and find out there are no jobs in their field of study, and are lucky to find a job that allows them to pay their student loans. Is this any better than grinding at poker to no avail?

If you play poker for a long enough time, you should be able to objectively evaluate your ability. If you find that you aren't cutting it, you have a few options. You can try to get better (obviously something everybody should be doing anyways) or you can decide to invest your time in something more fruitful.

I never, ever feel bad about taking money from a bad player (or any player for that matter). If a person has a gambling problem, it is up to them to get help. I mean, for a long time, I was a break even/slightly losing player. However, I took the initiative to get better, and it is something I've invested a tremendous amount of time in. I still don't know if I will ever be a hugely winning player. I'd like to think so--I've always been way ahead of the curve intellectually, and so far it's paid off pretty well in poker. The point is that eventually, I'm going to have to make a choice of whether or not playing poker is what I want to do. Just like people choose to smoke, drink, eat mcdonalds, go skydiving, and so on.

Saying you feel better about playing in MTTs than you do playing sngs or cash games is like saying if you have to kill a stranger, you'd rather do it by remote detonation rather than with a knife (very different, but you get the analogy). It makes no difference, but hey, whatever helps you justify your actions...

Poker doesn't teach you to be individualistic or amoral. The big name poker players are also some of the biggest philanthropists. True, you are at the table to make money off of other people, but it's no different than, say, trying to get a good deal on a car.

Explain something to me.

I have entered races (running) with distances ranging from 5K to a marathon. All the runners paid entry fees, and some of the runners cashed.

I have played chess touraments. All of the players paid entry fees, and at the end of the tournament, some of the players cashed.

What makes a poker tournament so much different morally that you use the bizarre analogy of methods of murder?

[zackryan28]

Originally Posted by Poker Clif

Explain something to me.

I have entered races (running) with distances ranging from 5K to a marathon. All the runners paid entry fees, and some of the runners cashed.

I have played chess touraments. All of the players paid entry fees, and at the end of the tournament, some of the players cashed.

What makes a poker tournament so much different morally that you use the bizarre analogy of methods of murder?

I don't understand what you are saying.

My point was that people who say that playing MTT's is taking advantage of bad players less than cash games and sngs are just justifying. True, playing cash games is more DIRECT. The chip values are real dollar amounts. sngs are similar in that you can calculate your equity at any point in the table (at least face value equity, ignoring skill advantages). MTTs are harder, but it's the same deal. You have a prize pool, and you have people who simply do not have a good chance of cashing.

To get back to what you are saying about running and chess, these 2 activites are quite different than poker. Chess has very little variance in it. While on occasion an expert might be able to win a draw against a master, in general people know where they stand. I am an average chess player. I can probably beat anybody who has not studied chess seriously simply because I've played all my life and I know a few good openings. With that said, I have almost no chance of beating somebody like my brother, who is a low-level expert (in fact, he can beat me blindfolded). Poker is not like that simply because of variance. On any given hand a fish has the ability to suck out on me.

Running is the same deal. I know how fast I can run a 5K, 10K, etc... There is a little bit of variance. Maybe the favorite pulls a hamstring 3 miles in, or maybe there are weather conditions that make it hard for certain runners...but in general, people know where they stand.

So again, what are you asking?

[Dafpfy]

One of the best articles I ever read. A++

[quirkasaurus]

my understanding was that the biggest knock against poker was the tendency of the weak-willed to become obsessed to the point of negatively effecting their lives ( ie. no time for friends, family; losing money to destructive levels )

The same logic, however, could easily be made for video games, like Xbox, which totally have the ability to consume the time and energy of those addicted. I see little difference between the 2 obsessions.

The only objection the government sincerely has against online poker is that the transactions are untaxed.

Under the logic that government officials decry poker, computer games should also be banned.

I say... that's the tendency of human nature. Legislate away poker and even computer games and we will find another unproductive endeavor to wile away the hours.

[freddy234]

Originally Posted by Gullanian

I'm sure I'm just re-iterating what has been said by others, but in my opinion poker isn't good for me, it nearly destroyed me.

You can argue skills gained through poker can be extrapolated to improve your life, but the step from that and arguing 'its good for you' is a big one to make. Sure it taught me a lot about EV and how to apply some mathematical principles usefully in my life which have no doubt improved it in some ways, but the overall cost was far too dear.

For every successful poker player there are people beneath them somewhere in the pyramid who are suffering to a degree hopefully many of you will never need to experience. It's a sobering thought that obviously people with invested interests in the game often turn a blind eye to.

And it's not just the ones with extreme problems who are suffering, it's a huge number of people, some of them my friends who just don't understand it's not going to go anywhere for them and after many years they are still wasting their time on it (if they enjoy it fair enough, but I don't actually think they do in a lot of cases). It's cost them in ways that are unmeasurable, such as lack of focus in more hopeful areas in their life which they abandon for the game with unrealistic expectations.

You can also extrapolate from the game of poker is that it teaches people to be individualistic and amoral. The constant ethic that runs rampant in this forum is that you better rape the fish for all he has or someone else will get it. Any money on the table is fair game. Take every edge possible. These don't really help you out in day to day life, nor where they mentioned in the article, and encourage a more selfish and less empathetic society.

I'm not anti poker at all, but it saddens me to read the forums a lot when real problems are not recognised or given enough weighting. Or plainly misunderstood.

So no, poker isn't good for me, nor is it good for a lot of people.

I agree fully. I have friends with this problem. They don't realize that they're wasting their talents in a full time poker career. I guess there's nothing you can do about it. I mean I asked them to think what theyre doing but they're just unable to see.

[ChipExcess]

I looked at the title and was gonna give a huge lol but op changed my opinion. Of course poker isn't good for you as a matter of fact it's bad for you. It's a form of a gambling and one that is often associated with the 7 sins greed, anger, misery, pride, ego, sloth & gluttony. (- the lust)

You constantly experience one or more of these negative emotions that messes up your psyche. Unless, you completely play for fun it's impossible too avoid them. It's just the way the game is and the sole reason so many players go on tilt and fail miserably.

[Potbelly]

Originally Posted by Katipo

Poker doesn't have feelings or intentions and as such, it cannot be good or bad any more than a chair can. Such attributes are merely our naive projections. The environment shapes us in unpredictable ways based on our dispositions and attitudes. Poker is no different. It can be both a phenomenal tool and a curse but these characterizations depend entirely on how it interacts with an individual's makeup.

With a healthy attitude free of ego, poker is a valuable tool. This is why some schools are making it part of their curriculum. Besides solid fundamentals and basic math, successful high-level play requires a good understanding of psychology, excellent observational skills, enormous flexibility with sparks of creativity, brutal self-honesty and of course, endless discipline coupled with a laser focus. In many ways, poker is a microcosm of the game of life as success depends on the same qualities.

At low stakes, simply being disciplined and applying the fundamentals is sufficient to be a marginal winner but as the stakes increase, so do the demands. Like a good teacher, poker grabs your hand and takes you gently through the journey of self-improvement, provided you're willing to pay attention, work hard and stay on track. It's unfortunate that most people approach it with oversized egos and dreams of grandeur while simultaneously ignoring the lessons the game offers as well as the skills it trains.

Although, I haven't always had the right approach to the game, experience eventually brought wisdom and change. I've since greatly benefited from poker and not just in a financial sense. It helped me see myself more clearly than any self-help book and removed the seemingly unending layers of BS that I used to protect my precious ego or sense of identity.

Poker shines on every aspect of your psyche and leaves no weakness unturned. It can reveal defects you never knew existed and make you a much more resilient person. What do you do when facing a large downswing? Do you rashly tilt away even more money at higher stakes in a desperate attempt to recoup losses? Do you grind insane volume while playing mediocre poker? Do you get so discouraged that you quit for several weeks? Or, do you redouble your efforts to improve while taking negative variance with a proud and detached grin because you know that most players would be thrown off their game in a similar situation? Likewise, if you're walking on water, do you become overconfident and decide to take shots at higher stakes against players you considered much better just a week ago or do you patiently wait to see what part is you and what part is luck? Our reactions to the highs and lows poker throws at us reflects our responses in many other situations and it's essential to turn inappropriate behaviors into useful ones that encourage growth.

Variance doesn't exist just in poker; life is variance on a cosmic scale. If you've done your best to get a good grade on a test and didn't meet your goals, that too may be variance and our response to it dictates our long-term success. Some may look at their grade in disgust and slack-off but the few who find success will strive to improve what they can control without worrying about the rest. We'll all have our obstacles and we need to prepare ourselves. With poker, our personal Mt. Everest will be nothing more than many small hills stacked on each other.

full of win

[MajorLevi]

In poker, you have to be stress, and not go on tilt. Always be aware of to give, what actions you perform.

[Poker Clif]

Originally Posted by zackryan28

I don't understand what you are saying.

My point was that people who say that playing MTT's is taking advantage of bad players less than cash games and sngs are just justifying. True, playing cash games is more DIRECT. The chip values are real dollar amounts. sngs are similar in that you can calculate your equity at any point in the table (at least face value equity, ignoring skill advantages). MTTs are harder, but it's the same deal. You have a prize pool, and you have people who simply do not have a good chance of cashing.

To get back to what you are saying about running and chess, these 2 activites are quite different than poker. Chess has very little variance in it. While on occasion an expert might be able to win a draw against a master, in general people know where they stand. I am an average chess player. I can probably beat anybody who has not studied chess seriously simply because I've played all my life and I know a few good openings. With that said, I have almost no chance of beating somebody like my brother, who is a low-level expert (in fact, he can beat me blindfolded). Poker is not like that simply because of variance. On any given hand a fish has the ability to suck out on me.

Running is the same deal. I know how fast I can run a 5K, 10K, etc... There is a little bit of variance. Maybe the favorite pulls a hamstring 3 miles in, or maybe there are weather conditions that make it hard for certain runners...but in general, people know where they stand.

So again, what are you asking?

I don't think that tournament poker is morally beter than cash games, the way you pose the question. However, one of the reasons that some of us (I'm not the only one) choose to play only tournaments is that, IMO, they are much less likely to attract an addictive personality than are cash games.

When someone has an addictive personality (rather than being addicted to one thing, such as alcohol or heroin), he is always looking for a rush, whether it's from a drug, gambling, or a dangerous behavior such as auto racing, skydiving, or even unprotected sex with a prostitute.

For example, I know someone who made his money by running a con ("renting" houses that he did not own). Pulling off the con, and the risk of being caught, was much more exciting than holding a regular job.

It's hard to get that kind of rush from playing tournament poker. There are certainly exciting situations in tournament poker, but in general, a game where you can play for several hours, with nothing more than your entry fee at risk, isn't much fun for someone looking for a rush.

Of course, if someone is determined to risk all of his money playing poker, he can use the kid's college fund to enter a high-roller tournament, or play more tables at his level than he can possibly handle.

But I know one thing for certain. When I'm playing in a tournament, I never have to think about whether an all-in means the guy is shoving his rent money in the heat of the moment. In the charity room where I play, I've watched some of the cash play, (and I even know some of the players from when I worked with addicts 15 years ago) and I suspect that I've seen a player shove his roll more than once.

[bishqqq]

LOTS OF people have compulsive destructive behavior......& will always crash & burn......

[Rackad]

Originally Posted by 1p0kerboy

Wow. A+.

I expect this article to become an important source in the struggle for legitimacy for poker.

nah communist wannabies have been around since the first day of mankind n its been alot worse than it is now. So sure some commis like americans will have problem but far from everybody!

Let me give u an example. After the shootings in norway the norwegian government said we will respond by having an even more open society. If it happened to usa again it would turn itself into sovietunion ano 1970s...